You are here

Pages

To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.

I saw this article and laughed a little bit. After I was done with that, it got me thinking that the state senator isn't at all out of line bringing something like this to the floor. The sonogram requirement for an abortion is clearly a gender biased form of legislative intimidation aimed at punishing women for making choices regarding their health.

Actually, men probably should be getting a cardiac stress test before being prescribed erectile dysfunction medication anyway. Rectal exam while you're being tested anyway? Sounds sensible.

And in that sense, these procedures are a lot more sensible than the sonagrams Virginia has now legislated for women who are to undergo abortion procedures. It still wouldn't stop men from thinking that such things are needlessly intrusive into their private health procedures.

Is the (repulsive) rationale behind the ultrasound to confront the women with their decision to abort? Like look into the child's eyes and tell me you don't want that?

More like look into the kitten's eye's and then pull the trigger.

I actually, honestly don't know because i've never been, nor will be in that position. (I hope)

It's partly that and partly just stacking on another invasive medical procedure because they want to make it tremendously humiliating and inconvenient. It's a bit like the schoolyard bullies that would take your bookbag and not give it back (whilst the bus was loading) until you did something humiliating that they could tease you about later. Those folks never grew up.

Is the (repulsive) rationale behind the ultrasound to confront the women with their decision to abort? Like look into the child's eyes and tell me you don't want that?

More like look into the kitten's eye's and then pull the trigger.

I actually, honestly don't know because i've never been, nor will be in that position. (I hope)

It's partly that and partly just stacking on another invasive medical procedure because they want to make it tremendously humiliating and inconvenient. It's a bit like the schoolyard bullies that would take your bookbag and not give it back (whilst the bus was loading) until you did something humiliating that they could tease you about later. Those folks never grew up.

Well, no. It's possible to be a rational human being AND believe abortion is wrong (I'm pro-choice btw). While this is clearly a despicable law intended to humiliate and punish 'slutty' women, it's motivation might be more complicated than that of a highschool bully. Because a pro-lifer believes he's righting a wrong instead of just being a sadist for the sake of it like that highschool bully.

Is the (repulsive) rationale behind the ultrasound to confront the women with their decision to abort? Like look into the child's eyes and tell me you don't want that?

More like look into the kitten's eye's and then pull the trigger.

I actually, honestly don't know because i've never been, nor will be in that position. (I hope)

It's partly that and partly just stacking on another invasive medical procedure because they want to make it tremendously humiliating and inconvenient. It's a bit like the schoolyard bullies that would take your bookbag and not give it back (whilst the bus was loading) until you did something humiliating that they could tease you about later. Those folks never grew up.

Well, no. It's possible to be a rational human being AND believe abortion is wrong (I'm pro-choice btw). While this is clearly a despicable law intended to humiliate and punish 'slutty' women, it's motivation might be more complicated than that of a highschool bully. Because a pro-lifer believes he's righting a wrong instead of just being a sadist for the sake of it like that highschool bully.

I realize that the plural of anecdote is not data, but from my own experience, the vast and overwhelming majority of folks I have met that advocate these sorts of measures are, in fact, bullies who just enjoy bringing the humiliation on folks with which they disagree.

edit: The folks who tend to push for these sorts of measures also tend to be the type that bring AK 47's to political rallies and/or say that they "would never do this myself, but totally understand how someone could shoot an abortion doctor."

I dunno. Absent the guns, it seems to me that it's fairly common for people in general to enjoy the humiliation and abuse of people with which they disagree.

Yup :(

I think, though, that the difference in degree matters. I may disagree and disagree strongly with folks who want to introduce creationism in schools, but I'm not making websites that post their home and work addresses with pictures of their faces with rifle scope crosshairs over them. I don''t harass folks going into church with pamphlets and placards telling them that they are complete and utter morons for believing that crap. And I don't try to ban the personal availability of creationist reading material.

I can see how this would seem like bullying and unnecessary humiliation, if someone did not believe that a fetus is a living breathing defenseless human baby. However, like most other political hot button issues, both sides have so demonized the opposition that it would seem they are both blinded to the motives of the other side. Clearly the motive here for the pro-life camp is to confront the mother with her upcoming act(what pro-lifers see as basically murder).

I know that most of you don't see it this way, but can you at least see the logic based on the pro-life morality position?

He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose. -PJE

If I ignore the overwhelming evidence that an extremely powerful portion of the anti choice movement is specifically out to punish women, then yes, Nomad. I agree.

And being Catholic, I actually know a lot of people who believe just as you wrote above, so they certainly exist.

But the evidence of that other group of people, still in a rage over the 19th amendment, cannot be ignored.

I come in frequent contact with many people who take the pro-life position and I can't think of a single one who's position is based on the desire to punish sexual indiscretion. I'm not saying they don't exist, but from my experience anti-abortion stance is almost purely a position against the perceived murder of innocent infants.

If the goal was to punish women, why do pro-lifers advocate adoption so strongly?

He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose. -PJE

I can see how this would seem like bullying and unnecessary humiliation, if someone did not believe that a fetus is a living breathing defenseless human baby. However, like most other political hot button issues, both sides have so demonized the opposition that it would seem they are both blinded to the motives of the other side. Clearly the motive here for the pro-life camp is to confront the mother with her upcoming act(what pro-lifers see as basically murder).

I know that most of you don't see it this way, but can you at least see the logic based on the pro-life morality position?

Legally that fetus is not a living, breathing, defenseless human baby. Period.

That means the pro-life group is trying to use emotions to side-step the legal compromise society has already established in regards to abortion. They lost the legal argument so now they're just trying to bully, guilt, or humiliate women into following the morals dictated by their religion. Anyway you look at it, it's still the pro-life camp trying to force their religious views onto someone else.

Nomad wrote:

If the goal was to punish women, why do pro-lifers advocate adoption so strongly?

If their goal was to reduce the number of abortions, why are those same pro-lifers against contraception? It's because having sex for pleasure instead of procreation is considered bad and contraception allows those slutty women to dodge their punishment for having pre-martial sex, which is getting pregnant.

If the goal was to punish women, why do pro-lifers advocate adoption so strongly?

Experience leads me to conclude that people who wish to ban abortion only advocate adoption as an alternative to abortion. They do not preach contraception, they do not think sociey should care for poor mothers and children..in general, once that child is born they have no real motivation to protect or support a child that they so viciously wanted to be born.

I know this because I have looked into adopting myself, and I am disgusted by much of the structure set up around it.

I can see how this would seem like bullying and unnecessary humiliation, if someone did not believe that a fetus is a living breathing defenseless human baby. However, like most other political hot button issues, both sides have so demonized the opposition that it would seem they are both blinded to the motives of the other side. Clearly the motive here for the pro-life camp is to confront the mother with her upcoming act(what pro-lifers see as basically murder).

I know that most of you don't see it this way, but can you at least see the logic based on the pro-life morality position?

Sorry, but I cannot see this as anything but a cruel burden to place on someone making an already harsh choice. It just doesn't need to happen. Plus, it is a waste of money.

Most of the ones I know use adoption not for any logical reason, but because it's the only thing they can think of as a viable option to justify the rest of their beliefs. They don't know how it really works and how screwed up the process is. They just think it will fix the problem and anyone who doesn't use it is willfully doing something they think is awful.

Trying to use facts and figures against that is useless.

Maybe this issue is best debated amongst the people who need to get off my lawn. - JoeBedurndurn

If the goal was to punish women, why do pro-lifers advocate adoption so strongly?

I fail to see the connection. How do states which passed laws on parental consent for terminations, or contraception, "cooling off" periods, or these ultrasound laws promote adoption?

I think funding to family courts, foster care, adoption agencies would be more of a shot in the arm to that end.

Or, did we get side tracked so quickly?

I also cannot see a cogent argument to be made that making sex/pregnancy more onerous, and more expensive for women is anything but anti-female legislation.

And we then get to the heart of decisions like Roe v Wade, Loving v. Virginia which found that a legislative body has a very limited place invading your personal choices with respect to medicine, their personal lives.